Talk:Orbital (1993 album)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Electronic music, set up to organize and expand entries on Electronic music. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Album name
The correct name of this album is "Orbital 2" which you can verify by looking at the CD case, any retailer, and any discography. --Mperry 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this is certainly not true. The name of this album is Orbital - the same as the first one. Triangle e 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- The evidence doesn't support your assertion. The album is listed as Orbital 2 at online stores[1][2] and general music review sites[3][4]. Although according to All Music Review, the second album is untitled[5]. This is also mentioned on the official Orbital web page when talking about the album where they say, "Known as Untitled II or Brown Album".[6] If we want to follow artist intent then this album might not be Orbital 2 but it also wouldn't be just Orbital either. But I don't think they care much as in the last FAQ question on the album page someone asks about Orbital 2 and they didn't bother to correct.[7] All Music Review ends up calling the album Orbital 2 as well, listing it in the discography as such[8] and going so far as to write a review with using that name[9]. Finally, on the spine of the case of my CD, which I bought only several months after the release of the album, it says "Orbital 2" (I can provide photos on request). I have a hard time believing that Orbital had enough creative control to include what they wanted for the inlay (see FAQ link above) but didn't have control over the text on the spine. --Mperry 18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know in which country you live in or at what point you bought your copy of the album but the album, as it was originally released in the UK (where I am from) was just called Orbital - the same title as the first one. I own the original album, as bought at the time, and it is definitely the case that it was called Orbital. Whether, subsequently it was renamed Orbital 2 in other countries around the world to avoid confusion with the first album I do not know, but the original release of this album WAS called Orbital. It is referred to as The Brown Album and Orbital 2 in other publications to avoid confusion - but that does not detract from the fact that the album is still called Orbital. Triangle e 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- My copy was purchased in the US. As I already stated, I bought my copy several months after the original release in 1993. Please provide references for your claims. --Mperry 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are two major chart statistic books in the UK: [10] and [11]. Both of these are highly accurate and list the albums with their correct titles. I have a book by All Music called "The All Music Guide to Electronica" and it's riddled with mistakes throughout so I don't trust any of their publications. Triangle e 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- My copy was purchased in the US. As I already stated, I bought my copy several months after the original release in 1993. Please provide references for your claims. --Mperry 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know in which country you live in or at what point you bought your copy of the album but the album, as it was originally released in the UK (where I am from) was just called Orbital - the same title as the first one. I own the original album, as bought at the time, and it is definitely the case that it was called Orbital. Whether, subsequently it was renamed Orbital 2 in other countries around the world to avoid confusion with the first album I do not know, but the original release of this album WAS called Orbital. It is referred to as The Brown Album and Orbital 2 in other publications to avoid confusion - but that does not detract from the fact that the album is still called Orbital. Triangle e 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- The evidence doesn't support your assertion. The album is listed as Orbital 2 at online stores[1][2] and general music review sites[3][4]. Although according to All Music Review, the second album is untitled[5]. This is also mentioned on the official Orbital web page when talking about the album where they say, "Known as Untitled II or Brown Album".[6] If we want to follow artist intent then this album might not be Orbital 2 but it also wouldn't be just Orbital either. But I don't think they care much as in the last FAQ question on the album page someone asks about Orbital 2 and they didn't bother to correct.[7] All Music Review ends up calling the album Orbital 2 as well, listing it in the discography as such[8] and going so far as to write a review with using that name[9]. Finally, on the spine of the case of my CD, which I bought only several months after the release of the album, it says "Orbital 2" (I can provide photos on request). I have a hard time believing that Orbital had enough creative control to include what they wanted for the inlay (see FAQ link above) but didn't have control over the text on the spine. --Mperry 18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Orbital brown album.jpg
Image:Orbital brown album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
